ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Step-by-Step Metagenomics for Food Microbiome Analysis: A Detailed Review.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress in Multi-Omics Analysis of Dairy Products: Nutritional Quality, Safety Evaluation, and Health Functions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advances in Shotgun Metagenomics for Cheese Microbiology: From Microbial Dynamics to Functional Insights.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prevalence of Microorganisms and Suggestion for Potential Contribution of Microorganisms to Volatile Basic Nitrogen Production in Beef at Current Purchase Stages.Food science of animal resources · 2025Article
- Probiotic Yeast and How to Use Them-Combining Traditions and New Waves in Fermented Beverages.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Can Metagenomic Analyses Be Used Effectively in Safe Food Production?Food science & nutrition · 2025Review
- Detection of parasites in food and water matrices by shotgun metagenomics: A narrative review.Food and waterborne parasitology · 2025Review
- Current Progress and Future Trends of Genomics-Based Techniques for Food Adulteration Identification.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Next-generation sequencing applications in food science: fundamentals and recent advances.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review article offers a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of using metagenomic tools in food microbiome research. It covers the scientific foundation and practical application of genetic analysis techniques for microbial material from food, including bioinformatic analysis and data interpretation. The method discussed in the article for analyzing microorganisms in food without traditional culture methods is known as food metagenomics. This approach, along with other omics technologies such as nutrigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics, collectively forms the field of foodomics. Food metagenomics allows swift and thorough examination of bacteria and potential metabolic pathways by utilizing foodomic databases. Despite its established scientific basis and available bioinformatics resources, the research approach of food metagenomics outlined in the article is not yet widely implemented in industry. The authors believe that the integration of next-generation sequencing (NGS) with rapidly advancing digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and big data will facilitate the widespread adoption of this research strategy in microbial analysis for the food industry. This adoption is expected to enhance food safety and product quality in the near future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.